Abstract
This article discusses a study on preservice education students and the implementation of digital identities through self-constructed websites in a technology course. Researchers investigated the process of helping educators create a create a domain of their own while they consider the role of technology and digital identities in their future classrooms. Data revealed themes that focused around building the website and building a digital identity. The researchers contend that there is a continuum of three stages that exist for students to engage in web literate practices. These stages include being consumers, curators, and creators of digital content. These stages are not meant to be viewed as a linear process, but as an opportunity to review instructional practices, and literacy strategies in learning environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). London: Verso.
Angrosino, M. V., & Mays de Pérez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From method to context. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 673–702.
Baird, J. R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 263–282.
Baker, F. W. (2016). Conversations with innovators in learning and technology: Jim groom. TechTrends, 60(2), 110–113.
Barrett, H. C. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436–449.
Belshaw, D. (2016) Digital literacy, identity and a domain of one’s own. Irvine, CA: DML Central. Retrieved from https://dmlcentral.net/digital-literacy-identity-domain-ones/
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Campbell, G. (2009). A personal cyberinfrastructure. Educause Review, 44(5), 58–59.
Clark, C., Chow-Hoy, T. K., Herter, R. J., & Moss, P. A. (2001). Portfolios as sites of learning: Reconceptualizing the connections to motivation and engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(2), 211–241.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Psychology Press.
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dezuanni, M., O’Mara, J., & Beavis, C. (2015). ‘Redstone is like electricity’: Children’s performative representations in and around Minecraft. E-learning and digital media, 12(2), 147–163.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Reading the word and the world. Bergin & Garvey.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.
Gregorc, A. F. (1984). Style as a symptom: A phenomenological perspective. Theory Into Practice, 23(1), 51–55.
Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and beyond communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 641–653.
Holland, D., Lachicotte Jr., W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press.
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457–482.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Vol. 521423740). Cambridge University Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (vol. 41). Sage publications.
McCarthey, S. J., & Moje, E. B. (2002). Identity matters. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2), 228–238.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis, 1(1), 1–17.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
National Council of Teachers of English, NCTE (2019) Definition of Literacy in a Digital Age. https://ncte.org/statement/nctes- definition-literacy-digital-age/.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Multilingual matters.
O'Byrne, W. I., & Pytash, K. E. (2017). Becoming literate digitally in a digitally literate environment of their own. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(5), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.59.
O’Byrne, W. I. (2018). Empowering Students as Critical Readers and Writers in Online Spaces, in E. Ortlieb , E. H. Cheek, Jr., P. Semingson (ed.) Best Practices in Teaching Digital Literacies (Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, Volume 9) Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 233–250.
O’Byrne, W. I. (2019). Educate, Empower, Advocate: Amplifying marginalized voices in a digital society. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. Retrieved online at https://www.citejournal.org/volume-19/issue-4-19/english-language-arts/educate-empower-advocate-amplifying-marginalized-voices-in-a-digital-society/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English language learning. In International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 669–680). Boston, MA: Springer.
Reingold, J., & Stommel, J. (2016). A brief history of domain of one’s own, part 1. Fredericksburg, VA: University of Mary Washington Division of Teaching and Learning Technologies. Retrieved from http://umwdtlt.com/a-brief-history-of-domain-of-ones-own-part-1/
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 63–81.
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.
Turner, K. H., Jolls, T., Hagerman, M. S., O’Byrne, W. I., Hicks, T., Eisenstock, B., & Pytash, K. E. (2017). Developing digital and media literacies in children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 140(supplement 2), S122-S126.
Udell, J. (2012). A domain of One’s own. Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/insights/2012/07/a-domain-of-ones-own
Watters, A. (2014). The monsters of education technology. Tech Gypsies Publishing. Retrieved from http://monsters.hackeducation.com
Watters, A. (2015). The web we need to give students. Retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2015/10/19/domains
Watters, A. (2017). Why a domain of one’s own matters (for the future of knowledge). Retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2017/04/04/domains
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.
Funding
All authors were employed by the public university at which the research was conducted. Additional funding was provided by said university in the form of a stipend for faculty members and to purchase survey marketing materials and giveaway items.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1: Focus Group Interview Questions
Appendix 1: Focus Group Interview Questions
Thank you XXX for your participation in this interview.
As you know our conversation will be recorded and used for research purposes. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about the work you do with technologies in instruction, and to find out more about the professional learning opportunities that have informed your work, and that you would like to receive in future.
You can stop the interview or ask for clarification at any time.
Do you understand that your completion of the interview signifies your consent to participate in this research project?
-
Tell us about your feelings about developing a website as part of this class.
-
Please describe challenges and opportunities you had while developing your website.
-
Please tell us about concerns you had as you developed an online, open digital identity.
-
Please describe some of the challenges and opportunities you experienced.
-
Tell us about how you might use these spaces and tools with students?
-
How are digital technologies made available to individuals in your learning process?
-
How might you integrate technologies into your normal teaching and learning? Tell us about the tools and strategies you may use to be successful in these endeavors.
-
As a student and future educator, how might these activities support your future areas of work? Why?
-
Thinking back to previous professional learning experiences, can you describe activities that have been MOST/LEAST helpful to learning as an educator using technology in instruction?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O’Byrne, W.I., Hunter-Doniger, T. Pre-Service Educators Developing a Digital Identity. TechTrends 65, 444–453 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00617-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00617-5